Common <i>and</i> Civil Law? Taking Possession of the English Empire in America, 1575-1630
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has generally been assumed that claims to the English empire in America were most closely associated with the English laws of land possession. This notion is reinforced by the long-standing belief that England eschewed Roman civil law and its derivatives in preference for the unique, domestic, and vernacular common law. As a number of historians have recently argued, however, English contemporaries recognized that the civil law, as codified by the emperor Justinian in the sixth century, was needed in all matters dealing with foreign affairs and foreign lands, because the common law had no efficacy in these matters. An examination of the colonial charters (or letters patent) issued by the English between 1575 and 1630, reveals that, in addition to use of the common law, may be found various expressions of the civil law and its derivative, the law of nations. The employment of these legal codes helped to ensure that Englands claims to territory in North America were internationally intelligible and less subject to the type of challenges that could result from the exclusive use of the English common law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it